zlacker

The changes all look fine to me, and many of them probably make me more likely to continue reading Dahl books to my kid.

I mean, none of the old language would stop me in my tracks but it adds up. There's plenty of options and I'm always picking the ones that I find the best, in many cases having a bunch of outdated language will cause me to pick something else next time.

>>furyof+(OP)
What are you going to do with all the old books?

>>teduna+U
I suppose burning them is an option. There could be organized events where like minded individuals surrender literature deemed to be incompatible with recent social norms and fashion.

>>teduna+U
Burn them, of course? Is that what you want to hear?

No one involved cares about the old books. This isn't about the old books. They're still in libraries. They're still classics, and worth preserving and reading. Go check them out!

What's happening here is that the owner of the copyright wants to sell new books to parents. And some of the content is a little off to modern parents, and they think they'll sell more if they modernize it a bit. This has happened before, and it'll happen again.

Basically: it's all about making a buck, and in particular capitalizing on the Matilda film.

Everyone here is thinking "ZOMG Political Correct Censorship Claims Another Victim", but what we actually have is "Han Shot First". Not as fun to yell about I guess.

>>teduna+U
Burn them, obviously.

>>ajross+52
I was assuming parent already had the books, as they mentioned continuing to read them, but of course you only get the changes if you buy new books.

>>ajross+52
> Everyone here is thinking "ZOMG Political Correct Censorship Claims Another Victim", but what we actually have is "Han Shot First".

"Han Shot First" is the artist changing his own work.

That is entirely different. The reason everyone is yelling is they intuitively sense how wrong it is to posthumously edit an artist without permission. There's a moral question here that exists apart from copyright ownership.

>>vnchr+V1
I hear that local fire departments are expert in burning dangerous books.

>>jonahx+G3
The artist is dead. This is absolutely being done with the permission of the copyright holder.

But what if it wasn't authorized? What if it was public domain? Would you make the same argument about a modified Shakespeare performance?

>>ajross+H5
I'm sorry, but it is as if you did not even read my post:

> The artist is dead.

That is why I used the word "posthumously".

> This is absolutely being done with the permission of the copyright holder.

That is why I said there was a moral question aside from the purely legal question of copyright.

> What if it was public domain?

I would 100% make the same argument. The problem is changing an author's work without their permission, and failing to indicate that. As others have said, if this were marketed as "The bowdlerized Roald Dahl" in clear print on the cover, it would not disgust me in the same way.

> Would you make the same argument about a modified Shakespeare performance?

It is typically clear in these cases that Shakespeare is being modified.

>>teduna+U
If you own the old books you should be thrown in jail for promoting hate.

/s

>>teduna+U
I certainly don't re-read every book I have over and over again. Mostly they're decoration.

The replies about burning them are incredible when my post only said I'm less likely to keep picking the book up.

>>furyof+(OP)
> probably make me more likely to continue reading Dahl books to my kid.

But you aren't really reading Dahl. You're reading a derivative work based on Dahl's writing. Which is fine, but understand what it is.

>>furyof+0A
I asked because, unlike the 500 other comments opining whether they love it or hate it, you seemed to be the only person who might actually take action.